vhelp.. you are prolly not saving the template correctly.. i ahd a problem, the first try.. just open the file select all then open a new text doc .. paste and save as XXXX.mcf you prolly have the html header in the file.. you can also just edit that out if the one you have

P.S. you have the same computer specs as me pretty much so youll get close to same times as me.. ( looked under profile)

You can just right click the link and select "save as".

Originally Posted by Cobra

I'll clock my machine back and retest it for you when I get a chance, rally.

How about editing your original post to make the results clearly visible? As in, add it to your first post as people produce results - maybe rank them in order of speed (as long as I'm in the top five).

"For MPEG2 encoding the Hyper-Threading works correctly, and Intel's processors that support it get a good gain. Just compare Pentium 4 2.4C and its sibling without Hyper-Threading. By the way, if the bus bandwidth is not indicated, it means that the RAM speed has a weak effect on performance, and the comparison of the Pentium 4 2.4C and Pentium 4 2.4 comes to comparison of performance of the processors with HT and without it. Performance doesn't depend much on the cache size, though there's some difference between the processors with the large and small L2 caches. But the worst disadvantage of the Celeron is not the cache but the lack of the Hyper-Threading. The gap between Celeron 2.0 and Pentium 4 2.0 is not that great, it's the same for Celeron 2.4 GHz and Pentium 4 of the same clock speeds without Hyper-Threading. And the breakaway of Pentium 4 2.4C is caused not by the large cache... AMD's processors look flabby in this test - AMD's flagships Athlon XP 3200+ and Athlon 64 FX-51 go on a par with Pentium 4 2.4C and fall behind Pentium 4 3.2 GHz. But the worst thing for AMD is not the defeat of its top CPUs but the fact that Athlon XP 2500+ looks equal to Celeron 2.4 GHz! "

That one P4 result seems a bit fast compared to the other P4s. Which chipset are you running that P4 on Delerious?

ASUS P4P800 Deluxe with i865 chipset running 2.8 GHz Pentium 4
(Northwood) at 3122 MHz with 223MHz front side bus (increasing FSB
at least another 10 pretty soon). Memory is Geil Ultra-X PC3200 with
timings currently set at 2.5-3-3-5. BIOS has been hacked to enable
full PAT - probably similar to an i875 chipset in performance.

Stuff is all over the place now. How is it that 3200 A64 is markedly faster than Cobra's OC'd 3500? And how is BJ_M's 2.66 P4 markedly faster than offline's OC'd P4? The results here indicate that overclocking slows your system down, at least for this real-world application benchmark.

Twizzle I need RAM specs and chipset specs. See the first post for specifics on submitting results.

This thread is not about Intel vs AMD, and if anyone starts arguing about it then I will issue warnings/bannings.

This is for the purposes of exploration only, not to prove what is better.

Thank you

Originally Posted by Cobra

what other factors could be potentially be overlooking that would explain this result?

Simple: honesty of results submitted (though I think this latest one has to do with not using the supplied TMPGEnc settings file). I'm not cutting my result of 42 seconds, but I find it exceedingly difficult to believe a single A64 3200 can achieve the same encoding time as my two 3.06s. If that were the case I'd have got two or three A64 rigs for what this one cost me

You results were pretty much what I expected from AMDs offering, Cobra.

Already thought of it, but the only thing I could think of is to have the person PM or email the TMPGEnc logfile to me to and a checksum of the final MPEG file. That way it would be harder to spoof results if your logfile and checksum don't reflect what they should be.

I've got a pretty large LAN party coming up in a couple weeks that I'm going to use to test some systems in person. I'll just put everything I need on a CD and take it from person to person. Since there's nothing to install it should go quick and nobody should worry about about trying it out. Hopefully there will be a good mix of systems so I can get a barometer of what to gauge other results with. I wasn't looking for massive differences between like systems. If two people had an A64 3000 and one had a couple seconds' faster time we could figure out where the other system is being slowed and thus help members optimize their systems for video. Having results scattershot like they are now doesn't really help anyone.

As before its an A64 3200 running and 2200Mhz on an Abit AV8. I have 1Gig of DDR 333 and there is one HDD which is partitioned but working on the same partition. I am using WinXP home and the system is a clean install (3 days old)

Hmmm, Im a little concerned now that I must have done something wrong... so just to confirm:
1. I am using TMPGEnc Plus 2.59.47.155
2. I downloaded both parts of the video file and they extracted to one file that is 3.14mb in size
3. I used the mcf setting file from this thread
4. I ticked all of the boxes under the CPU setting (on a side note, when I left the Cache Setting one blank it slowed things down to about 1.05)
5. I ran it.... this time 45 seconds but I do have a program running in the background.

Im more than happy to prove the settings / results if some one tells me how they want to see it.

I think that the only difference that it has picked up is that it is an Winchester core at 0.09u and not the Northwood core at 0.13u. (Would explain why I had a big argument with the salesman about what he had sold me when I got home! OOps )

If you're talking about your core and my core, mine is a Newcastle. I thought I was getting a Winchester, but I didn't... Shame - the Winchester is a nice core.

The actual difference between the two cores is power consumption and heat production - no speed difference. The move to 0.09u technology allows more transistors to be put on a chip and therefore more complex CPUs to be made (I think).

offline - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "data access". Do you have something in mind to help our results?

Agreed. Basically, exclude the user from having to make any settings or tweaks, automatically capture their system settings (CPU-Z dump) and report the time with some sort of checksum on it so you can't fake it. Is this what you are proposing?

I don't know enough about this to offer help with constructing a system like this, or to even know if it is possible.

I agree that it would be good to do this although very difficult. You also have a HUGE number of variations of systems with chipsets, drivers, RAM let alone CPUs. You just have to look at a review of motherbords to see the variations in speeds with everything else stock.

Naturally, the Pentium 4 CPUs will hammer all the AMDs in video encoding. I will probably make a sticky about that sometime in the near future - it is a common misconception that a video encoding test can show the real performance of a CPU. Matters are a little more complicated than that, I'm afraid!

I agree that it would be good to do this although very difficult. You also have a HUGE number of variations of systems with chipsets, drivers, RAM let alone CPUs. You just have to look at a review of motherbords to see the variations in speeds with everything else stock.